Skip to content


Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise;Constitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 4034/75
Judge
Reported in1978(2)ELT153(All)
ActsCustoms Act - Sections 110, 110(2), 124 and 128; Constitution (Fourty-second Amendment) Act - Sections 58 and 58(2)
AppellantSteel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - consequently, in view of the provisions contained in section 58(2) of the constitution (forty-second amendment) act, this petition must fail......of the amending act. clause (3) of article 226 of the constitution lays down that existence of an alternative remedy will be a complete bar to the entertaining of a writ petition. the learned standing counsel invited our attention to section 128 of the customs act which provided for an appeal against every decision or order passed under the act. in view of the provision contained in section 128 of the customs act, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order which it impugnes by the present writ petition.4. since the petitioner had an alternative remedy under section 128 of the customs act, this writ petition could not have been presented, after the commencement of the constitution (forty-second amendment) act. consequently, in view of the provisions.....
Judgment:

J.M.L. Sinha, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by Steel Enterprises (Private) Ltd., Kanpuf, challenging the validity of the order dated 28-2-1975 (Annexure VI to the writ petition) passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.

2. Very briefly stated the facts were as follows :-

The petitioner runs a factory under the name and style of Indian Rolling Mills. It is situated in Fazalganj, Kanpur, on 31st of July, 1974, the Excise authorities seized the stocks of the factory. Under section 110 of the Customs Act, where any goods are seized and no notice in respect thereof is given under Clause (a) of Section 124 of the same act within six months of the date of the seizure, the goods have to be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. However, according to the proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 110, the aforesaid period of six months can, on sufficient cause, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. On 8th of January, 1975, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause against the extension of time. On 16th of January, 1975, the petitioner submitted its reply and on 28th February, 1975. the impugned order was passed.

3. According to Section 58 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, every pending petition before a High Court which could not have been admitted under the provisions of Article 226 as it stands amended, stands abated on the commencement of the Amending Act. Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution lays down that existence of an alternative remedy will be a complete bar to the entertaining of a writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel invited our attention to Section 128 of the Customs Act which provided for an appeal against every decision or order passed under the act. In view of the provision contained in Section 128 of the Customs Act, the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order which it impugnes by the present writ petition.

4. Since the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, this writ petition could not have been presented, after the commencement of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act. Consequently, in view of the provisions contained in Section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, this petition must fail.

5. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. No order however, is made as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //